DOCSLIB.ORG

Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado 2001-2005 VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION and MAPPING

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado 2001-2005 VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION and MAPPING Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado 2001-2005 VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION AND MAPPING FINAL REPORT --August, 2005 Technical Memorandum 8260-05-02 Remote Sensing and GIS Group Technical Service Center Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado This report was prepared for the U.S. National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Center for Biological Informatics by the Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Group of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Technical Service Center, Denver, Colorado in cooperation with Colorado Natural Heritage Program and NatureServe. Technical Memorandum No. 8260-05-0X. U.S. Department of the Interior Mission Statement The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. Mission of U. S. Bureau of Reclamation The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. The Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Group, organized in 1975, provides assistance and advice regarding the application of remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) technologies to meet the spatial information needs of the Bureau of Reclamation and other governmental clients. USGS-NPS VEGETATION MAPPING PROGRAM Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado David Salas Physical Scientist Bureau of Reclamation Remote Sensing and GIS Group Denver, Colorado Joe Stevens Ecology Team Leader Colorado Natural Heritage Program Fort Collins, Colorado Keith Schulz Regional Vegetation Ecologist NatureServe Boulder, CO Report Produced by: Program Managed by: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Geological Survey Technical Service Center Center for Biological Informatics Remote Sensing and GIS Group Denver Federal Center, Building 810 Mail Code D-8260 Denver Federal Room 8000, MS 302 Center Building 56 Denver, Colorado 80225-0046 Denver, Colorado 80225 Cooperation agencies and organizations: iii USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Rocky Mountain National Park TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................................................VII LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................... VIII LIST OF CONTACTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ........................................................................................ IX ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. XIII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.................................................................................... XV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................................................3 USGS-NPS Park Vegetation Mapping Program .................................................................................................3 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK VEGETATION MAPPING PROJECT ...................................................................4 PREVIOUS VEGETATION MAPS .................................................................................................................................5 SCOPE OF WORK.......................................................................................................................................................6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NATIONAL VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION (NVC) AND SYSTEM (NVCS)...........................8 INTRODUCTION TO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM METHODOLOGY AND ELEMENT RANKING .............................11 The Natural Heritage Ranking System ..............................................................................................................11 Legal Designations for Rare Species.................................................................................................................13 Element Occurrences and their Ranking...........................................................................................................13 PROJECT AREA..................................................................................................................................................15 LOCATION AND REGIONAL SETTING.......................................................................................................................15 CLIMATE AND WEATHER........................................................................................................................................18 TOPOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................................................................18 GEOLOGY ...............................................................................................................................................................20 Precambrian ................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Paleozoic........................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Mesozoic........................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Cenozoic ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Quaternary ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 SOILS ......................................................................................................................................................................22 WILDLIFE ...............................................................................................................................................................23 HYDROLOGY...........................................................................................................................................................23 VEGETATION ..........................................................................................................................................................25 Overview............................................................................................................................................................25 East/West Slope Effects .....................................................................................................................................25 Alpine Zone........................................................................................................................................................27 Subalpine Zone..................................................................................................................................................28 Montane Zones ..................................................................................................................................................29 Wetland and Riparian........................................................................................................................................29 METHODS..............................................................................................................................................................31 PLANNING AND SCOPING ........................................................................................................................................31 BOR Responsibilities and Deliverables: ...........................................................................................................31 NatureServe Responsibilities and Deliverables: ...............................................................................................31 CNHP Responsibilities and Deliverables:.........................................................................................................32 Scoping Meetings ..............................................................................................................................................32 Initial Planning Meetings: ............................................................................................................................................. 32 iv USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping Program Rocky Mountain National Park Gradsect Meeting:.......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Field Preparation Meetings: ........................................................................................................................................... 33 Interim Status Meeting:.................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evaluation of Hanging Lake
    Evaluation of Hanging Lake Garfield County, Colorado for its Merit in Meeting National Significance Criteria as a National Natural Landmark in Representing Lakes, Ponds and Wetlands in the Southern Rocky Mountain Province prepared by Karin Decker Colorado Natural Heritage Program 1474 Campus Delivery Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 August 27, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. 2 LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 5 Source of Site Proposal ................................................................................................... 5 Evaluator(s) ..................................................................................................................... 5 Scope of Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 5 PNNL SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 5 Brief Overview ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Practices for Restoration of Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed
    United States Department of Agriculture Principles and Practices for the Restoration of Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed-Conifer Forests of the Colorado Front Range Robert N. Addington, Gregory H. Aplet, Mike A. Battaglia, Jennifer S. Briggs, Peter M. Brown, Antony S. Cheng, Yvette Dickinson, Jonas A. Feinstein, Kristen A. Pelz, Claudia M. Regan, Jim Thinnes, Rick Truex, Paula J. Fornwalt, Benjamin Gannon, Chad W. Julian, Jeffrey L. Underhill, Brett Wolk Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-373 January 2018 Addington, Robert N.; Aplet, Gregory H.; Battaglia, Mike A.; Briggs, Jennifer S.; Brown, Peter M.; Cheng, Antony S.; Dickinson, Yvette; Feinstein, Jonas A.; Pelz, Kristen A.; Regan, Claudia M.; Thinnes, Jim; Truex, Rick; Fornwalt, Paula J.; Gannon, Benjamin; Julian, Chad W.; Underhill, Jeffrey L.; Wolk, Brett. 2018. Principles and practices for the restoration of ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range. RMRS-GTR-373. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 121 p. Abstract Wildfires have become larger and more severe over the past several decades on Colorado’s Front Range, catalyzing greater investments in forest management intended to mitigate wildfire risks.The complex ecological, social, and political context of the Front Range, however, makes forest management challenging, especially where multiple management goals including forest restoration exist. In this report, we present a science-based framework for managers to develop place-based approaches to forest restoration of Front Range ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer forests. We first present ecological information describing how Front Range forest structure and composition are shaped at multiple scales by interactions among topography, natural disturbances such as fire, and forest developmental processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Denudation History and Internal Structure of the Front Range and Wet Mountains, Colorado, Based on Apatite-Fission-Track Thermoc
    NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL RESOURCES, BULLETIN 160, 2004 41 Denudation history and internal structure of the Front Range and Wet Mountains, Colorado, based on apatite­fission­track thermochronology 1 2 1Department of Earth and Environmental Science, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801Shari A. Kelley and Charles E. Chapin 2New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM 87801 Abstract An apatite fission­track (AFT) partial annealing zone (PAZ) that developed during Late Cretaceous time provides a structural datum for addressing questions concerning the timing and magnitude of denudation, as well as the structural style of Laramide deformation, in the Front Range and Wet Mountains of Colorado. AFT cooling ages are also used to estimate the magnitude and sense of dis­ placement across faults and to differentiate between exhumation and fault­generated topography. AFT ages at low elevationX along the eastern margin of the southern Front Range between Golden and Colorado Springs are from 100 to 270 Ma, and the mean track lengths are short (10–12.5 µm). Old AFT ages (> 100 Ma) are also found along the western margin of the Front Range along the Elkhorn thrust fault. In contrast AFT ages of 45–75 Ma and relatively long mean track lengths (12.5–14 µm) are common in the interior of the range. The AFT ages generally decrease across northwest­trending faults toward the center of the range. The base of a fossil PAZ, which separates AFT cooling ages of 45– 70 Ma at low elevations from AFT ages > 100 Ma at higher elevations, is exposed on the south side of Pikes Peak, on Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Fourteeners Checklist
    Colorado Fourteeners Checklist Rank Mountain Peak Mountain Range Elevation Date Climbed 1 Mount Elbert Sawatch Range 14,440 ft 2 Mount Massive Sawatch Range 14,428 ft 3 Mount Harvard Sawatch Range 14,421 ft 4 Blanca Peak Sangre de Cristo Range 14,351 ft 5 La Plata Peak Sawatch Range 14,343 ft 6 Uncompahgre Peak San Juan Mountains 14,321 ft 7 Crestone Peak Sangre de Cristo Range 14,300 ft 8 Mount Lincoln Mosquito Range 14,293 ft 9 Castle Peak Elk Mountains 14,279 ft 10 Grays Peak Front Range 14,278 ft 11 Mount Antero Sawatch Range 14,276 ft 12 Torreys Peak Front Range 14,275 ft 13 Quandary Peak Mosquito Range 14,271 ft 14 Mount Evans Front Range 14,271 ft 15 Longs Peak Front Range 14,259 ft 16 Mount Wilson San Miguel Mountains 14,252 ft 17 Mount Shavano Sawatch Range 14,231 ft 18 Mount Princeton Sawatch Range 14,204 ft 19 Mount Belford Sawatch Range 14,203 ft 20 Crestone Needle Sangre de Cristo Range 14,203 ft 21 Mount Yale Sawatch Range 14,200 ft 22 Mount Bross Mosquito Range 14,178 ft 23 Kit Carson Mountain Sangre de Cristo Range 14,171 ft 24 Maroon Peak Elk Mountains 14,163 ft 25 Tabeguache Peak Sawatch Range 14,162 ft 26 Mount Oxford Collegiate Peaks 14,160 ft 27 Mount Sneffels Sneffels Range 14,158 ft 28 Mount Democrat Mosquito Range 14,155 ft 29 Capitol Peak Elk Mountains 14,137 ft 30 Pikes Peak Front Range 14,115 ft 31 Snowmass Mountain Elk Mountains 14,099 ft 32 Windom Peak Needle Mountains 14,093 ft 33 Mount Eolus San Juan Mountains 14,090 ft 34 Challenger Point Sangre de Cristo Range 14,087 ft 35 Mount Columbia Sawatch Range
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Climate Center Sunset
    Table of Contents Why Is the Park Range Colorado’s Snowfall Capital? . .1 Wolf Creek Pass 1NE Weather Station Closes. .4 Climate in Review . .5 October 2001 . .5 November 2001 . .6 Colorado December 2001 . .8 Climate Water Year in Review . .9 Winter 2001-2002 Why Is It So Windy in Huerfano County? . .10 Vol. 3, No. 1 The Cold-Land Processes Field Experiment: North-Central Colorado . .11 Cover Photo: Group of spruce and fi r trees in Routt National Forest near the Colorado-Wyoming Border in January near Roger A. Pielke, Sr. Colorado Climate Center sunset. Photo by Chris Professor and State Climatologist Department of Atmospheric Science Fort Collins, CO 80523-1371 Hiemstra, Department Nolan J. Doesken of Atmospheric Science, Research Associate Phone: (970) 491-8545 Colorado State University. Phone and fax: (970) 491-8293 Odilia Bliss, Technical Editor Colorado Climate publication (ISSN 1529-6059) is published four times per year, Winter, Spring, If you have a photo or slide that you Summer, and Fall. Subscription rates are $15.00 for four issues or $7.50 for a single issue. would like considered for the cover of Colorado Climate, please submit The Colorado Climate Center is supported by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station it to the address at right. Enclose a note describing the contents and through the College of Engineering. circumstances including loca- tion and date it was taken. Digital Production Staff: Clara Chaffi n and Tara Green, Colorado Climate Center photo graphs can also be considered. Barbara Dennis and Jeannine Kline, Publications and Printing Submit digital imagery via attached fi les to: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Lawn Lake Flood Interpretive Area (Elevation 8,640 Ft)
    1 NCSS Conference 2001 Field Tour -- Colorado Rocky Mountains Wednesday, June 27, 2001 7:00 AM Depart Ft. Collins Marriott 8:30 Arrive Rocky Mountain National Park Lawn Lake Flood Interpretive Area (elevation 8,640 ft) 8:45 "Soil Survey of Rocky Mountain National Park" - Lee Neve, Soil Survey Project Leader, Natural Resources Conservation Service 9:00 "Correlation and Classification of the Soils" - Thomas Hahn, Soil Data Quality Specialist, MLRA Office 6, Natural Resources Conservation Service 9:15-9:30 "Interpretive Story of the Lawn Lake Flood" - Rocky Mountain National Park Interpretive Staff, National Park Service 10:00 Depart 10:45 Arrive Alpine Visitors Center (elevation 11,796 ft) 11:00 "Research Needs in the National Parks" - Pete Biggam, Soil Scientist, National Park Service 11:05 "Pedology and Biogeochemistry Research in Rocky Mountain National Park" - Dr. Eugene Kelly, Colorado State University 11:25 - 11:40 "Soil Features and Geologic Processes in the Alpine Tundra"- Mike Petersen and Tim Wheeler, Soil Scientists, Natural Resources Conservation Service Box Lunch 12:30 PM Depart 1:00 Arrive Many Parks Curve Interpretive Area (elevation 9,620 ft.) View of Valleys and Glacial Moraines, Photo Opportunity 1:30 Depart 3:00 Arrive Bobcat Gulch Fire Area, Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest 3:10 "Fire History and Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation Efforts" - Carl Chambers, U. S. Forest Service 3:40 "Involvement and Interaction With the Private Sector"- Todd Boldt; District Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service 4:10 "Current Research on the Fire" - Colorado State University 4:45 Depart 6:00 Arrive Ft. Collins Marriott 2 3 Navigator’s Narrative Tim Wheeler Between the Fall River Visitors Center and the Lawn Lake Alluvial Debris Fan: This Park, or open grassy area, is called Horseshoe Park and is the tail end of the Park’s largest valley glacier.
    [Show full text]
  • Boreal Toad (Bufo Boreas Boreas) a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas) A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 25, 2005 Doug Keinath1 and Matt McGee1 with assistance from Lauren Livo2 1Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, P.O. Box 3381, Laramie, WY 82071 2EPO Biology, P.O. Box 0334, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309 Peer Review Administered by Society for Conservation Biology Keinath, D. and M. McGee. (2005, May 25). Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/ assessments/borealtoad.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Deb Patla and Erin Muths for their suggestions during the preparation of this assessment. Also, many thanks go to Lauren Livo for advice and help with revising early drafts of this assessment. Thanks to Jason Bennet and Tessa Dutcher for assistance in preparing boreal toad location data for mapping. Thanks to Bill Turner for information and advice on amphibians in Wyoming. Finally, thanks to the Boreal Toad Recovery Team for continuing their efforts to conserve the boreal toad and documenting that effort to the best of their abilities … kudos! AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES Doug Keinath is the Zoology Program Manager for the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, which is a research unit of the University of Wyoming and a member of the Natural Heritage Network. He has been researching Wyoming’s wildlife for the past nine years and has 11 years experience in conducting technical and policy analyses for resource management professionals.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado Mountain Club 2009 Donors to CMC Annual Campaign [Oct
    The Colorado Mountain Club ANNUAL REPORT 2009 Annual Report 2009 1 From the Chief Executive Officer he past year was an Dominguez Escalante National Conservation Area just south incredibly challenging time of Grand Junction. On the Front Range, we celebrated the for our entire country, designation of Rocky Mountain National Park’s backcountry Teconomically speaking. Businesses as wilderness. This designation is one of the final chapters in around the country failed, and the long journey of protecting the beloved park the CMC many people saw their personal played a major role in creating in 1915. finances change significantly. Every Our Youth Education Program introduced nearly once in awhile an event happens 5,000 youth and their chaperones to an education only the that makes all of us change our great outdoors can bring, and we furthered our work with focus and get back to basics. In the severely disabled children. I can’t tell you what an honor it nonprofit world, buckling down was for me to watch a young man who has been wheelchair while still achieving our goals is bound his entire life get to the top of our climbing wall. That not new to us; we always make experience alone gave me strength to get through last year’s magic happen with very little. I’m tough times. proud to report that the Colorado The upcoming year will be another time of growth Mountain Club saw a number of and change for the CMC. We are inching our way closer to achievements this past year despite our 100th anniversary and have begun a rebranding project the economic challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Potential in the Southern Rocky Mountains Region and Beyond
    Flood Potential in the Southern Rocky Mountains Region and Beyond Steven E. Yochum, Hydrologist, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado 970-295-5285, [email protected] prepared for the SEDHYD-2019 conference, June 24-28th, Reno, Nevada, USA Abstract Understanding of the expected magnitudes and spatial variability of floods is essential for managing stream corridors. Utilizing the greater Southern Rocky Mountains region, a new method was developed to predict expected flood magnitudes and quantify spatial variability. In a variation of the envelope curve method, regressions of record peak discharges at long-term streamgages were used to predict the expected flood potential across zones of similar flood response and provide a framework for consistent comparison between zones through a flood potential index. Floods varied substantially, with the southern portion of Eastern Slopes and Great Plains zone experiencing floods, on average for a given watershed area, 15 times greater than an adjacent orographic-sheltered zone (mountain valleys of central Colorado and Northern New Mexico). The method facilitates the use of paleoflood data to extend predictions and provides a systematic approach for identifying extreme floods through comparison with large floods experienced by all streamgages within each zone. A variability index was developed to quantify within-zone flood variability and the flood potential index was combined with a flashiness index to yield a flood hazard index. Preliminary analyses performed in Texas, Missouri and Arkansas, northern Maine, northern California, and Puerto Rico indicate the method may have wide applicability. By leveraging data collected at streamgages in similar- responding nearby watersheds, these results can be used to predict expected large flood magnitudes at ungaged and insufficiently gaged locations, as well as for checking the results of statistical distributions at streamgaged locations, and for comparing flood risks across broad geographic extents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rocky Mountain Front, Southwestern USA
    The Rocky Mountain Front, southwestern USA Charles E. Chapin, Shari A. Kelley, and Steven M. Cather New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico 87801, USA ABSTRACT northeast-trending faults cross the Front thrust in southwest Wyoming and northern Range–Denver Basin boundary. However, Utah. A remarkable attribute of the RMF is The Rocky Mountain Front (RMF) trends several features changed from south to north that it maintained its position through multi- north-south near long 105°W for ~1500 km across the CMB. (1) The axis of the Denver ple orogenies and changes in orientation from near the U.S.-Mexico border to south- Basin was defl ected ~60 km to the north- and strength of tectonic stresses. During the ern Wyoming. This long, straight, persistent east. (2) The trend of the RMF changed from Laramide orogeny, the RMF marked a tec- structural boundary originated between 1.4 north–northwest to north. (3) Structural tonic boundary beyond which major contrac- and 1.1 Ga in the Mesoproterozoic. It cuts style of the Front Range–Denver Basin mar- tional partitioning of the Cordilleran fore- the 1.4 Ga Granite-Rhyolite Province and gin changed from northeast-vergent thrusts land was unable to penetrate. However, the was intruded by the shallow-level alkaline to northeast-dipping, high-angle reverse nature of the lithospheric fl aw that underlies granitic batholith of Pikes Peak (1.09 Ga) faults. (4) Early Laramide uplift north of the RMF is an unanswered question. in central Colorado.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Rocky Mountain National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Dedication and Acknowledgements............................................................................ 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3 Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 5 Alpine Environments...................................................................................................................................................5 Flooding......................................................................................................................................................................5 Hydrogeology .............................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions to the Geography of the United States, 1922
    CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE UNITED STATES, 1922. PENEPLAINS OF4 THE FRONT RANGE AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, COLORADO. By Wnxis T. LEE. PURPOSE OF THE PAPER. The purpose of this paper is to call attention to some of the major surface features in the Rocky Mountain National Park and to point out their probable correlation with similar features in neigh­ boring regions. The observations on which the paper is based were made in the summer of 1916, during an investigation in which other work demanded first consideration. This paper may therefore be considered a by-product. For the same reason many of the observa­ tions were not followed to conclusions, yet the data obtained seem to be sufficient to establish a certain order of events, the recognition of which may be of assistance in working out in detail the geologic and geographic history of the Rocky Mountain region. TWO CYCLES OF EROSION PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED. In an account of the general geology of the Georgetown quad­ rangle, Colo.j Ball x describes three distinct types of land forms " an old, mature mountainous upland; younger V-shaped valleys in­ cised in this upland; and glacial cirques developed at the heads of some of the streams, passing downward into U-shaped valleys." Ball describes the mountainous upland as consisting of highlands of rounded or gently sloping tops which are remnants of an ancient peneplain or old surface of erosion. Most of these remnants in the Georgetown quadrangle lie above an altitude of 11,500 feet. On thig old peneplain there were many monadnocks, some of which are now recognizable as the summits of the highest mountains.
    [Show full text]